Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I agree with you, but at the same time, I wholeheartedly support the current location for the Performing Arts Center because the 2 main buildings under discussion have been destroyed by remodeling.

Yeah...any arguments about preserving those buildings were lost decades (?) ago when those buildings were gutted. As soon as the Prudential Building lost the seagulls flying up the atrium (sounds painful, I know...but it was delightful back in the day), it lost its historicity. BOOM.

[delts145]

Probably like a lot of you, I loved gazing at that seagull sculpture as a child. That really was a beautiful work. Does anyone know where it ended up?

[arkhitektor]

The Prudential building has far more architectural value than any of the various parking lots that the theater should be built on instead. The only plausible argument anyone can make for the current location is that it's the only place that the office building to which the theater is joined at the hip will also work.

But why does the theater have to be tied to an office building which, according to recent news, no developer has expressed interest in building, for which there is no financing, and the 'preferred site' for which the city admits it does not even own?

If the city is in such desperate need of a new theater, and public funds are going to be used to pay for it, why don't we just find an acceptable site for a theater, and design a theater, and fund and build a theater?

Attaching this project to an unneeded office building and using it as the latest 'white knight' to rescue Main St. (by tearing down a large portion of it) is what has cost this proposal my support. If the only way to save our city's Main St. is to tear it down and re-build it block by block every 20 years, what is the point of 'saving' it when, 20 years from now, there won't be much left of what we see today?

Finally, saying today that it's OK to tear all of these buildings down because 'we're going to get something much better' is pretty naive, considering that nothing has been designed yet and nobody has any idea how any of this is proposed to look.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by delts145

Probably like a lot of you, I loved gazing at that seagull sculpture as a child. That really was a beautiful work. Does anyone know where it ended up?

[Makid]

The part that most people forget is that at least 20 million of the 110 million is going to go to Regent Street itself. Without the theater, there is no upgrade to Regent street for a very long time.

I look at it like this: We gain an upgrade Regent Street, a theater and more pedestrian traffic on Main and Regent Street. For that we lose the Prudential building.

That in my opinion is a decent trade.

Without the theater, Regent street would be idle.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I agree with you, but at the same time, I wholeheartedly support the current location for the Performing Arts Center because the 2 main buildings under discussion have been destroyed by remodeling.

The thing that surprises and annoys me is when I look at old photos of SLC and see that there were 4-5 story buildings where today there are 1-2 story buildings. That is definitely moving backwards.

You're forgetting about the original Prudential Federal Savings Bank Building which would also be demolished:





http://www.utahurbanforum.com/broadway-tower-25-stories-100-s-main-t348.html

Originally Posted by T-Mac

I am with you Comrade, bring it down. I guess I don't see what people like about this building. I can throw up some windowless walls with some posts sticking out the top and a narrow window in the front and call it an amazing piece of architecture. Maybe we could keep it and turn it into a local downtown jail since it has that certain prisonesque look to it.

The city should just tear down the Kearns Building, because it's ugly! Just look at this photo of it:



http://www.emporis.com/building/kearnsbuilding-saltlakecity-ut-usa

[DMTower]

The difference is, the Kearns building is not ugly.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by DMTower

The difference is, the Kearns building is not ugly.

It's all subjective. I like the Metro Building, I think it's sleek!

Do you not like the original Prudential Federal Savings Bank Building? because in sacrificing the Metro Building, you will also be sacrificing the Prudential Federal Bank Building.

[Comrade]

Do you really believe the Kearns Building is ugly or are you trying to make a cute argument that brings little value to the discussion?

You'd be best served making a rational argument than an emotional one. To suggest because we don't like the Prudential Building, that we're fine with just demolishing anything and everything (as has been done in this thread) is absurd.

I think it's great some of you love the Prudential Building. But you're also ignoring some key issues with the building - namely that it's useless and has been useless for years. Tenants come and go because the building is falling apart and what use, outside its connection to a historical architect, does it bring Main Street? It doesn't bring much of anything. Often there is zero interaction with the street and because of that, it brings little in the way of foot traffic.

So, you like to look at it - you like to stare up at its seagulls. Is that really a good enough reason to keep the building? I could see it if it had a substantial use to the fabric of our city, but the building doesn't and how much is it going to cost to change that? Who's going to foot the bill? The problem with Main is that there are so many buildings that are rundown, or neglected, that you don't get sustainable tenants that actually bring something to the street. Instead, you have buildings like the Prudential that are pretty much useless outside being eye candy to a few architectural nerds.

My sympathies for the Prudential just aren't there. It's not naive of me to think we're getting something better there with the theater and as Makid has pointed out, the current location of the theater will go along way toward revitalizing Regent Street.

You have to pick and choose what you save and what you don't. That's the harsh reality of progress. When they built the Prudential Building in the 60s, I'm sure they demolished a fairly historical building to do just that. They took out an entire block of historical buildings for the One Utah Center & Wells Fargo Center. Accepting that reality doesn't mean you feel every building should be demolished - it just means you understand that sometimes, for the betterment of the community, you have to say goodbye to a historical structure.

In this regard, we're saying goodbye to a building, or might be anyway, that most residents probably won't miss and has essentially turned into a black hole for foot traffic and replacing it with a development that will overall make downtown better.

The Prudential Building has not made downtown better or more lively or more viable.

A theater, and additional development, especially on Regent Street, will.

I'm sorry you're going to miss the Prudential Building. But I won't.

[Stenar]

Y'all are funny. You'll still be trying to get it built on some empty lot when it's half finished.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Y'all are funny. You'll still be trying to get it built on some empty lot when it's half finished.

Half finished? It'll be fifteen years old and they'll still be saying it should be built in an empty lot.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Half finished? It'll be fifteen years old and they'll still be saying it should be built in an empty lot.

Indeed. Very true.

[SLC Projects]

If the Prudential building had windows, then it would of look better. But it's ugly.

[Old&New]

Double post

[Old&New]

We're talking about two buildings: the Metro, and the smaller old prudential federal savings bank next door to the metro. Are those in favor of the current proposed location ok with tearing down the older prudential federal savings bank, the one with the beautiful arched interior?

Also, if there is a chance to move the theater to the parking lot across the street, would you be in favor of this change?

Lastly, if an additional (two rather than one) private/public development project, between pri and the city, involved restoring and reusing the metro building as a classical art museum that would display classical art currently in storage, building a new tower, and attaching a new facade to the prudential federal savings bank building, would you be in favor?

[Comrade]

It's not an option - but even if it was, I much prefer the current site because of Regent Street.

Look, I'm not going to play the game of a nonexistent hypothetical. If we do this and that and maybe this ... then would you support saving it?!? It's not happening. Those aren't the options. So, I'm not going to play the game.

I've said what I've said on this matter. You're not going to change my mind. I will not miss this building and I am glad they're getting rid of it. It's ugly. It's rundown, it has offered nothing over the last twenty-years in terms of vibrancy to Main Street and there is no evidence of that changing. Bring something to Main Street that will actually put feet on the ground in that area - because right now, Main is a dead zone between 100 S & 200 S.

That has to change. It's not going to change if we keep the status quo. Sadly, some buildings just aren't worth saving. The Prudential is one of those buildings.

[scottharding]

Not to derail the debate (honestly), but I was in Sugarhouse yesterday and was impressed by all the stuff going on, particularly the Granite Building redo and the Sugar-hole. Construction has started AT LONG LAST on the hole, and the Granite Building is a skeleton. Someone should get some pictures if they're down that way. I'll snap some photos maybe if I end up down there this week. The new Westminster building is about complete as well. Does anyone know when the Wilmington development is supposed to get going?

[H4vok]

Awesome news about the 'hole' I didn't think that would ever start.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It's not an option - but even if it was, I much prefer the current site because of Regent Street.

Look, I'm not going to play the game of a nonexistent hypothetical. If we do this and that and maybe this ... then would you support saving it?!? It's not happening. Those aren't the options. So, I'm not going to play the game.

I've said what I've said on this matter. You're not going to change my mind. I will not miss this building and I am glad they're getting rid of it. It's ugly. It's rundown, it has offered nothing over the last twenty-years in terms of vibrancy to Main Street and there is no evidence of that changing. Bring something to Main Street that will actually put feet on the ground in that area - because right now, Main is a dead zone between 100 S & 200 S.

That has to change. It's not going to change if we keep the status quo. Sadly, some buildings just aren't worth saving. The Prudential is one of those buildings.

Comrade, I already told you that moving the theater IS a real possibility, as in the funding has been halted on the project for further review. The current proposal would not do regent street the justice it deserves; half of the theater's frontage on regent street would be a loading zone, and the retail spaces would be too shallow for any real viable retail.

The Prudential Building (not talking about the metro building) is definitely worth saving. More importantly, the site across the street is superior in every way.

Some arguments for the site across the street:

- closer to convention center, provides additional meeting space
- located at the terminus of City Creek; the creek leads shoppers directly to the box office
- creates a theater complex and gives Capitol and Pantages Theater additional loading docks, increasing their competitiveness.
- ensures the Pantages Theater's restoration and may even jump-start the process
- requires substantially less demolition, saves money, better preserves history
- fills a hole
- Preserves Main Street for more active uses such as retail
- property owners are now showing interest

[Comrade]

This is my final word on the subject because we're debating in circles now...

You have not laid out any reason, outside the fact it was the creation of William L. Pereira, to keep the Prudential Building. The building is in dire need of repair, has been a dead zone for foot traffic the past twenty-odd years and there is no evidence of that changing anytime soon. Now, it's possible someone steps in and decides to spend the millions of dollars it would take to turn that building into something functional, but I'm not betting on that. In fact, I'd wager if the building is saved, ten or fifteen years from now it's essentially in the same state - an architectural fossil that's only good at giving building nerds some eye candy when they walk up a desolate downtown.

I say demolish it, build a beautiful theater that will bring great foot traffic to the area and then turn that parking area on the other side of Main into a mixed-use development. Kill two birds with one stone.

This building has no current use. It's outdated, in need of repair and no one is investing in it. It has sat, ugly and desolate for over two decades and there is no indication of that changing.

It's taking up valuable space on Main and it's bringing nothing of quality to that area. You might like it, that's great, I sympathize, but just liking the way a building looks is not enough. I liked the Key Bank Tower, I was disappointed in its demolition - but I got over it. You'll get over this.